Few energy projects have been as racked with doubt as the nuclear power station that鈥檚 supposed to get built at Hinkley Point in Somerset, UK.
The latest bout of uncertainty follows the resignation of the chief finance director of EDF, the largely state-owned French company that would construct it. Thomas Piquemal felt that EDF鈥檚 share of the needed to get the power plant up and running could harm the company鈥檚 prospects.
Concerned British in London today.
Advertisement
The backdrop is a UK government desperate for the plug not to be pulled. Its reasoning? Energy security, the cost of power, and job creation. Nuclear plants can supply zero-carbon power continuously, and Hinkley will generate 7 per cent of current UK electricity demand for 60 years, at a rate that is currently cheaper than that of power from offshore wind. And the foreign investment needed would lead to the creation of some 25,000 jobs.
Future security
But how essential is Hinkley? That depends on a few key factors: how much electricity the UK needs in the decades ahead, how efficiently electricity is used and to what extent it replaces transport fuels and natural gas for heating.
suggested that electricity demand in 2050 could be 30 per cent higher than in 2015, with increased nuclear capacity playing an important role in meeting that demand, with smaller roles for coal and bioenergy facilities that capture and store emitted carbon, and a part to play for wind, tidal and solar power.
Since that work, the ground has shifted. The prospects for carbon capture and storage in the UK have dimmed and the costs of producing electricity from renewable sources have fallen further. Electricity from offshore wind is likely in 2025 to cost significantly less than that from Hinkley. In addition, the ability to store large amounts of electricity to smooth out intermittent supply from renewables in the 2020s seems more likely.
At the crossroads
Lots of renewables, together with electricity storage and a smart grid that can adjust power generation and demand, could render obsolete the whole concept of a continuous supply of 鈥渂aseload power鈥�, which nuclear is designed to provide. Under this scenario, the mid-2020s, when Hinkley would come online, could see the UK locked into a 35-year commitment to an inflexible and expensive form of electricity ill-suited to a new energy landscape.
Alternatively, if Hinkley can be built to tough safety standards without bankrupting EDF, so that it can deliver power at a predictable cost over its 60-year lifespan, and if a more flexible grid proves not to be feasible, then the government鈥檚 enthusiasm may prove justified.
On balance, though, the cost looks too high, and the current hiatus provides an opportunity to back off from Hinkley and rekindle investment in renewables, while ensuring the provision of sufficient gas plants to act as back up in case mass storage of electricity fails to materialise.
Ultimately, if EDF does pull the plug on Hinkley, the government will either have to come back to renewables or carbon capture and storage in a big way, or recognise that its carbon targets are a lost cause.
The juggling act of getting secure, low-carbon power at the cheapest possible cost is not called the energy policy 鈥渢rilemma鈥� for nothing.
